General Manager, Ordnance Vs. Collector of Customs

General Manager, Ordnance vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 16, 1983

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/338

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/338
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S Grover, Vice-, S T G., A Srinivasamurthy
Decided On: May 16, 1983
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

General Manager, Ordnance

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (1983)LC1313DTri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....was difficult to verify and accept the claim.3. in relation to the revision application filed before the government of india and which is being heard as appeal by this tribunal, on 31st march, 1983 one shri b.s, dhillon, an employee of the ordnance factory appeared. the appellant was required to explain as to how the appeal was maintainable having been filed by embarkation hqrs. the hearing was adjourned for today when we find no representation.4. shri k.v. kunnikrishnan, jdr appears for the revenue and on query from the bench whether any hearing took place before the revisionary authority informed that as per the records, on 7th of january, 1980 some hearing did take place for producing necessary catalogue and literature and that the documents were filed. we like to reproduce the following portion from the government record of the personal hearing on 7th january, 1980: mr. s. paramaswamy, dept. manager, ordnance factory, bandara appeared. he explained with catalogue that these parts are not interchangeable with m.v. they are designed only for compressor. these parts have specific part numbers.5. the government did not pass any final orders on the revision application. but in view of the stated facts and the words used being "that the manager explained ' we section no reason as to why the claimed classification should not be accepted in view of the notification cited before the appellate collector of customs.therefore, we direct that the refund claim be allowed on the basis of the importer's claimed classification.6. before parting with the case we like to observe that it is not the first case where we find complete indifference on the part of appellant (a central government agency) in making proper arrangements for representation. it is a sad commentary that in spite of our having administered warning the behaviour pattern is not changed. we hope that in future we shall not have to make comments of this nature. for the revenue shri k.v. kunnikrishnan has been.....

Full Judgment

1. M/s. Embarkation Headquarters claimed refund of duty on behalf of General Manager, Ordnance Factory (Bandara) in relation to import of goods vide Bill of Entry No. GSI No. 30 dated 4.1.1974, on the ground that the goods were parts of Ammonia Compressors and, therefore, were assessable under ICT 72(3) at the rate of 30% (F.N. 10) plus 5% R D.The refund claim was turned down by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Stores Section) vide order dated 13th January, 1975 on the ground that catalogue and literature were not produced, 2. Before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, the appellant reiterated its claim and cited Notification No. 81/73 of 29.7.73. The appeal was, however, rejected on the same ground as by the Assistant Collector that in the absence of catalogue or literature it was difficult to verify and accept the claim.

3. In relation to the revision application filed before the Government of India and which is being heard as appeal by this Tribunal, on 31st March, 1983 one Shri B.S, Dhillon, an employee of the Ordnance Factory appeared. The appellant was required to explain as to how the appeal was maintainable having been filed by Embarkation Hqrs. The hearing was adjourned for today when we find no representation.

4. Shri K.V. Kunnikrishnan, JDR appears for the Revenue and on query from the Bench whether any hearing took place before the Revisionary Authority informed that as per the records, on 7th of January, 1980 some hearing did take place for producing necessary catalogue and literature and that the documents were filed. We like to reproduce the following portion from the Government record of the personal hearing on 7th January, 1980: Mr. S. Paramaswamy, Dept. Manager, Ordnance Factory, Bandara appeared. He explained with catalogue that these parts are not interchangeable with M.V. They are designed only for compressor.

These parts have specific part numbers.

5. The Government did not pass any final orders on the Revision Application. But in view of the stated facts and the words used being "that the Manager explained ' we section no reason as to why the claimed classification should not be accepted in view of the notification cited before the Appellate Collector of Customs.

Therefore, we direct that the refund claim be allowed on the basis of the importer's claimed classification.

6. Before parting with the case we like to observe that it is not the first case where we find complete indifference on the part of appellant (a Central Government agency) in making proper arrangements for representation. It is a sad commentary that in spite of our having administered warning the behaviour pattern is not changed. We hope that in future we shall not have to make comments of this nature. For the Revenue Shri K.V. Kunnikrishnan has been very fair and his assistance is commendable. We hope that he shall lake necessary steps to inform the concerned quarters so that there is proper assistance in the type of cases before us, from both sides.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties General Manager, Ordnance vs Collector of Customs Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Grover, Vice-, S T G., A Srinivasamurthy